I came up with this idea today and I don't think I've ever heard it brought up anywhere that I've seen or heard:
I think most Christians believe that salvation is gained by BELIEVING (not going to get into how ludicrous that whole concept is here), not by works.
Using the Socratic method--
Step 1: Get them to define indoctrination. They would probably admit that anyone of a faith other than their own that seeks to raise a child in that faith would be indoctrinating the child.
2. Get them to agree that Christians are doing the right thing by bringing up a child in the Christian faith. What good Christian would not agree to this?
3. Ask them if, when the child is around 8 or so, does that child actually believe, or is that child indoctrinated, based on their answer to the first question? Actually you probably wouldn't have to use the word 'indoctrinated.' It would be so obvious. An honest person could not call the same method 'indoctrination' for one faith and not for their own.
4. Point out that indoctrination into the Christian faith is just that, and the child does not truly believe, but is indoctrinated. Therefore the child is NOT saved because it is NOT BELIEF.
If Christianity is the one true faith, indoctrination would not be necessary and the child would grasp that when it is old enough to figure it out for itself--no Sunday school needed. If they say are not indoctrinating children, they would have to admit: no Sunday school needed.
Thoughts?

How to make a difference between a true believer and some child that only copy's there parents belief-patterns?
I think not, they would call it indoctrination, they would call it education and guidance.

What happened, if a child never came in contact with religion?
Will this child suddenly beginn to ask questions about a god-concept?

Is this child also indoctrinated, now from the atheism-site of the spectrum, or is the not-knowing about a god the default position?

I am curious, is there a study or such, to this subject?

If atheism is a religion, then not playing football is an Olympic discipline.

(19-10-2012 04:32 AM)Marco Krieger Wrote: How to make a difference between a true believer and some child that only copy's there parents belief-patterns?
I think not, they would call it indoctrination, they would call it education and guidance.

What happened, if a child never came in contact with religion?
Will this child suddenly beginn to ask questions about a god-concept?

Is this child also indoctrinated, now from the atheism-site of the spectrum, or is the not-knowing about a god the default position?

I am curious, is there a study or such, to this subject?

I ran into an atheist at a meet up who never had the subject brought up until he asked about it. So they told him about it and read the bible. His reaction was basically, who would believe this?

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-

(19-10-2012 04:40 AM)fstratzero Wrote: I ran into an atheist at a meet up who never had the subject brought up until he asked about it. So they told him about it and read the bible. His reaction was basically, who would believe this?

Sounds encouraging.
Its support my thought, that atheism is the default position.
Indoctrination also has a timeframe to be succesfull, i think.

If atheism is a religion, then not playing football is an Olympic discipline.

(19-10-2012 04:32 AM)Marco Krieger Wrote: How to make a difference between a true believer and some child that only copy's there parents belief-patterns?
I think not, they would call it indoctrination, they would call it education and guidance.

I think, then, they would have to also call it education and guidance when parents of another faith do it.

(19-10-2012 04:40 AM)fstratzero Wrote: I ran into an atheist at a meet up who never had the subject brought up until he asked about it. So they told him about it and read the bible. His reaction was basically, who would believe this?

There are those that say we all have a natural "god-hole" that needs to be filled.

What we have is a natural curiosity; a knowledge hole.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.